Dear Bonnie,
Over the past years David Howlett and I have discussed some of these
matters at length on AnSax-L, which is one of the reasons why I referred to
the archives of AnSaxDat. Notwithstanding my high scholarly esteem and
great personal sympathy for him, I disagree with him on some points which I
regard as essential. Given that our controversial views are already
published on the web, I will try to keep my reply brief:
> Howlett does not despise numerology. He simply distinguishes
>the fact
>of composition in mathematical forms, such as the ratios 1:1,
>2:1, ex-
>treme and mean ratio, 3:2, 4:3, 9:8, from what some exegetes
>might think
>the mathematical forms 'mean', and discusses only the former.
If biblical exegesis as documented in exegetical sources can give us an
idea of how medieval authors thought the Bible was composed, as far as I
can see their notions of the form of biblical books (or of 'biblical
style') did *not* include numerical composition of letters, syllables,
words, 'lines' and chapters according to extreme and mean ratio (i.e.
Golden Section) or any other of the ratios which David adduces. [I leave
aside muscial theory analysing the numerical ratios of classical meter,
because these theories as in Augustine's _De musica_ were concerned with
microstructural units like feet and verse and with their effect on the
senses of the hearer, not with the macrostructure of entire texts]. David
does not simply distinguish between a "form", which interests him
exclusively, and its "meaning", which might or might not have interested
medieval authors/readers additionally, but he analyses forms very different
from those which medieval exegetes discussed or presupposed when they
discussed numbers and their meaning in the Bible. If biblical exegesis and
if autoexegetic statements made by medieval authors with regard to the
numerical structure of their own works can tell us something about their
interest in the numerical structure of texts, then it seems not that these
authors shared David's specific interests.
> He denies that his analyses are 'at odds with exegetic
>practice' and
>does not 'mind that the exegetical sources ... never mention and
>confirm'
>his understanding of Biblical style.
Oh yes, he has denied this frequently, and I have asked him frequently to
adduce at least *one* source which is not at odds with his approach but
mentions something which could at least be compared remotely to what he
describes as 'biblical style'. But David has never adduced anything, except
irrelevant (in my opinion irrelevant) analogies like the following:
There are, for example,
>poets like
>Columbanus of Saint Trond who tell their readers exactly how to
>compose
>adonic verses, but such poets are not at odds with those who
>compose
>adonic verses without explicit reference to what they are doing.
Adonic verses are not a characteristic of David's 'biblical style'. Adonic
verses were discussed *and* practiced, David's biblical style was *not*
discussed. Even without specific teaching, most people who have a basic
understanding of the principles of quantitative meter will understand at
least roughly what adonics are if they see one (or a couple of them), and
will be able to reproduce the meter. Much more would be required to notice
and reproduce the techniques of David's 'biblical style'.
>There
>are long traditions of exegesis of Vergil's poetry and of
>imitation of
>the same poetry. Though the exegetes are seldom identical with
>the poets
>they are not at odds with them. They do not attempt, however, to
>do the
>same things, and it would be more than a little foolish to deny
>the mani-
>fest evidence that fifty poetic imitators were reproducing a
>Vergilian
>phenomenon because no exegete had stated explicitly that they
>were doing
>it. Nicht wahr?
Wahr, aber nicht wirklich relevant. If, in the case of 'biblical style' and
its medieval imitation, there was at least a certain amount of overlapping
between the richly documented exegesis on the one hand, and David's notions
of the compositional practice on the other, I would feel much more
comfortable with David's notions. What he has are textual numerical
patterns which may be either intentional or simply the result of his own
analytical approach. Given their lack of corroborating context in
commentary traditions of the Bible or of other texts, I find it difficult
to be convinced of their intentionality.
However, I did not quote David's publications to proscribe them, quite to
the contrary, I would like others to read them and to make up their minds.
Otfried
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otfried Lieberknecht, Schoeneberger Str. 11, D-12163 Berlin
phone & fax: ++49 30 8516675, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Homepage for Dante Studies:
http://members.aol.com/lieberk/welcome.html
Listowner of Italian-Studies:
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/italian-studies/
Listowner of Medieval-Religion:
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|